Supreme Court says police ‘seizure’ includes shots fired at fleeing suspect

The police can find themselves on the wrong side of the Fourth Amendment when they shoot at a fleeing suspect, a divided Supreme Court ruled on Thursday.

The 5-3 decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, stems from a 2014 incident in Albuquerque in which New Mexico State Police attempted to arrest a woman for white-collar crimes.

As officers tried to enter Roxanne Torres’ car, she sped off, later claiming that she thought the police were criminals attempting a carjacking. As she was driving away, the officers fired 13 shots, striking Torres twice in the back and temporarily paralyzing her left arm. She drove 75 miles to a hospital but was ultimately airlifted to a hospital back in Albuquerque, where she was arrested the next day.

“The officers’ shooting applied physical force to her body and objectively manifested an intent to restrain her from driving away,” Roberts wrote. “We, therefore, conclude that the officers seized Torres for the instant that the bullets struck her.”

Chief Justice Roberts, joined by the court’s liberal wing, further stated that the physical force used by police represented a “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment even if the bullets failed to stop Torres.

The opinion represents an expansion of Fourth Amendment protections at a time when the nation is wrestling with police use of force and split-second decisions made by law enforcement officers.

The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable search and seizure by police and other government actors. The nation’s highest court spent a considerable amount of time debating what words like “unreasonable” and “seizure” mean when applied to on-the-ground policing.